To test the capability of rarebit perimetry (RP), a recent non-conventional perimetric technique, in detecting early functional damage in subjects with ocular hypertension (OHT) and to compare RP findings with those obtained by frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry.
Methods
Thirty patients with OHT were matched with 30 healthy subjects. All were tested with RP and FDT. Frequency-doubling technology mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD), as well as RP mean hit rate (MHR), of the two groups were analyzed. The agreement between the two techniques was tested by Kappa analysis.
Results
In the OHT group the mean (SD) FDT MD was 0.5 (2.1), the mean (SD) FDT PSD was 4.2 (1.6), and the mean (SD) RP MHR was 81.4 (6.7). In the control group, corresponding values were mean (SD) FDT MD 1.1 (1.4), mean (SD) FDT PSD 3.0 (0.3), mean (SD) RP MHR 96.2 (2.0). The differences between the two groups were not significant for the studied indexes. Eleven (36.6%) out of the 30 OHT eyes had abnormal RP results; 12 (40.0%) eyes had abnormal FDT results. Five (16.6%) eyes had abnormal RP and FDT findings. Only 1 eye (3.3%) in the control group had abnormal RP results and 3 eyes (10.0%) had abnormal FDT results. RP and FDT showed a moderate agreement (Kappa = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.51).
Conclusions
RP and FDT showed VF defects not shown in standard automated perimetry in the OHT group. This may be indicative of an increased risk in developing glaucoma, even if a gold standard for detecting subtle defects is not currently available. RP has the additional advantage of not requiring any expensive device to be used. The poor agreement between these techniques in identifying eyes with early damage warrants further investigations. Large longitudinal studies are needed before defining the role of RP in early glaucoma diagnosis.
WallM.What's new in perimetry. J Neuro-Ophthalmol2004; 24: 46–55.
2.
JohnsonC.A., AdamsA.J., CassonE.J., BrandtJ.D.Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol1993; 111: 645–50.
3.
SampleP.A., TaylorJ.D.N., MartinezG., LuskyM., WeinrebR.N.Short-wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol1993; 115: 225–33.
4.
JohnsonC.A., SamuelsS.Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1997; 38: 413–25.
5.
JohnsonC.A., DemirelS.The role of spatial and temporal factors in frequency-doubling perimetry. In: WallM., HeijlA., eds. Perimetry Update 1996/7: Proceedings of the XII International Perimetric Society Meeting.Amsterdam: Kugler, 1996; 13–9.
6.
BrusiniP., BusattoP.Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand1998; 76: 23–4.
7.
JohnsonC.A., CioffiG.A., Van BuskirkE.M.Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24–2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci1999; 76: 571–81.
8.
ChauhanB.C., JohnsonC.A.Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1999; 40: 648–56.
9.
CelloK.E., Nelson QuiggJ.M., JohnsonC.A.Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol2000; 129: 314–22.
10.
LandersJ., GoldbergI., GrahamS.A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the early detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2000; 28: 248–52.
11.
IesterM., MermoudA., SchnyderC.Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Correlation with Octopus Perimeter indices. Ophthalmology2000; 107: 288–94.
12.
AndersonA.J., JohnsonC.A.Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2002; 43: 398–401.
13.
TurpinA., McKendrickA.M., JohnsonC.A.Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2002; 43: 709–15.
14.
SolimanM.A.E., De JongLAMS, IsmaeilA.A.Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology2002; 109: 444–54.
15.
AndersonA.J., JohnsonC.A.Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am2003; 16: 213–25.
16.
KogureS., TodaY., CrabbD.Agreement between frequency doubling perimetry and static perimetry in eyes with high tension glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol2003; 87: 604–8.
17.
MedeirosF.A., SampleP.A., WeinrebR.N.Corneal thickness measurements and frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes. Ophthalmology2003; 110: 1903–8.
18.
ArtesP.H., NicolelaM.T., McCormickT.A., Le BlancR.P., ChauhanB.C.Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2003; 44: 646–52.
19.
MedeirosF.A., SampleP.A., WeinrebR.N.Frequency-doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol2004; 137: 863–71.
20.
FrisénL.A computer graphics visual field screener using high-pass spatial frequency resolution targets and multiple feedback devices. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser1987; 49: 441–6.
FrisénL.Closing perimetry's sensitivity gap: a rarebit approach. In: HensonD.B., WallM.Perimetry Update 2002/2003.The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler, 2004; 213–9.
24.
MartinL., WangerP.New perimetric techniques: a comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma2004; 13: 268–72.
MartinL.Rarebit and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in children and young adults. Acta Ophthalmol Scand2005; 83: 670–7.
27.
AndersonD., Patella V Automated static perimetry.St. Louis: Mosby, 1999; 117.
28.
LandisJ.R., KochG.G.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics1977; 33: 159–74.
29.
PedersonJ.E., AndersonD.R.The mode of progressive disc cupping in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol1980; 98: 490–5.
30.
QuigleyH.A., AddicksE.M., GreenR.Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma, III: quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol1982; 100: 135–46.
31.
QuigleyH.A., DunkelbergerG.R., GreenW.R.Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol1989; 107: 453–64.
32.
QuigleyH.A.Neuronal death in glaucoma. Progr Retin Eye Res1999; 18: 39–57.
33.
Kerringan-BaumrindL.A., QuigleyH.A., PeaseM.E.Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2000; 41: 741–8.
34.
HarwerthR.S., CrowfordM.L., FrishmanL.J.Visual field defects and neural losses from experimental glaucoma. Progr Retin Eye Res2002; 21: 91–125.
35.
QuigleyH.A.Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol1998; 125: 819–29.
36.
QuigleyH.A., DunkelbergerG.R., GreenW.R.Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology1988; 95: 357–63.
37.
QuigleyH.A., SanchezR.M., DunkelbergerG.R., HenautN.L., BaginskiT.A.Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1987; 28: 913–8.
38.
QuigleyH.A.Are some ganglion cells killed by glaucoma before others? In: KrieglsteinG.K., ed. Glaucoma Update III.Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987; 23–6.
39.
HarwertR.S., Carter-DawsonL., ShenF.Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1999; 40: 2242–50.
40.
WhiteA.J.R., SunH., SwansonW.H.An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2002; 43: 3590–9.
41.
JohnsonC.A.Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma1994; 3(suppl): S32–44.
42.
FrisénL.Spatial vision in visually asymptomatic subjects at high risk for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2003; 74: 1145–7.
43.
FrisénL.Vigabatrin-associated loss of vision. Rarebit perimetry illuminates dose-damage relationship. Acta Ophthalmol Scand2004; 82: 54–8.
44.
CoralloG., CicinelliS., PapadiaM., BandiniF., UccelliA., CalabriaG.Conventional perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology, and visual evoked potentials in the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur J Ophthalmol2005; 15: 730–8.
45.
MalmerM., MartinL.Microdot test of foveal function. A comparison with visual acuity at high and low contrast. Ophthal Physiol Optics2005; 25: 81–6.
46.
NilssonM., WangerP., MartinL.Perception of very small visual stimuli in the fovea. Normative data for the Rarebit Fovea Test. Clin Exp Optom2006; 89: 81–5.
47.
MedeirosF.A., SampleP.A., WeinrebR.N.Corneal thickness measurements and function abnormalities in ocular hypertensive patients. Am J Ophthalmol2003; 135: 131–7.
